Creationist Arguments: Overview

When one reads creationist literature about the human fossil record, there is a
definite pattern in the fossils that are selected for discussion.

Huse (1983), in a summary of "some of the more significant so-called fossil ape-men",
discusses the insignificant Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the Neandertals,
and the original Java Man fossil, ignoring all other H. erectus fossils,
H. habilis, and A. africanus.

Taylor (1992), ("Each of the most famous 'missing links' is discussed") devotes only
two sentences to H. habilis, mentioning no fossils by name and dismissing it
as an ape. Taylor also makes misleading use of the past tense to imply that even
evolutionists no longer accept habilis as a transitional form - an implication which
is totally incorrect. Of H. erectus, only Peking Man and the original Java
Man fossil are mentioned in the main text.

Parker (Morris and Parker 1982) claims that "all the candidates once proposed as our
evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list", and then proceeds to give
the list, which is inexplicably lacking H. erectus (it is lumped in with Java
Man) and H. habilis, and the gracile australopithecines. (Parker then
contradicts himself by admitting that the gracile australopithecines are still
possible candidates.)

Bowden (1981) discusses Piltdown Man, Java Man and Peking Man extensively. Unlike
most creationists he is at least aware of other Homo erectus fossils and the
Homo habilis fossils from Olduvai Gorge, but they receive only a brief
mention.

Lubenow (1992) alone appears to be aware of all the fossil material, and comes
closest to addressing the evidence, but he fails to discuss some of the more
compelling intermediate fossils such as OH 7, OH 24 and ER 1813 (because his book is
about the human fossil record, and he considers most habilis specimens to be
apes).

Until recently, most creationist literature followed Gish in claiming that the Java
Man and Peking Man fossils were of apes. Since Lubenow's book was published in
1992, some creationists have backed away from this absurd and untenable position,
though Gish (1995) has not. If he eventually does so, it looks as though his strategy
will be to blame Boule and Vallois for his own incompetence:

"... the Asian H. erectus fossils were apparently very different in
many respects [from modern humans], if Boule and Vallois and others are
correct in their assessment of these creatures." (Gish 1995, p.301)

Boule and Vallois made very clear that both Java and Peking Man were intermediate
between apes and humans, and Gish was only able to make it appear otherwise by
badly misrepresenting them.

Creationists appear to avoid discussion of the fossils that are the best evidence
for human evolution. These include superb fossils such as ER 3733 and Sangiran 17
(human but with primitive features), Sts 5 (apelike, but with some modern features)
and OH 7, OH 13, OH 24, and ER 1813 (so perfectly transitional that they are
difficult to classify).

In contrast to the above omissions, it is almost impossible to find a creationist
work that does not mention Nebraska Man (Lubenow is the one
exception), despite the fact that it was at best weak evidence for human
evolution even during its brief heyday 70 years ago, and Piltdown Man, despite the
fact that the hoax was discovered over 40 years ago. Ramapithecus, which was often
claimed to be a human ancestor in the 1960's and 70's, also gets mentioned
frequently.

Even more surprisingly, creationists do almost no anatomical comparisons, even of
the fossils they do discuss. (Virtually the only exception is Mehlert (1996), who I
hope to address in the future.) Typically, they will flatly assert that a fossil is
a human or an ape. Rarely do they provide photographs, so that their readers could
judge for themselves whether the fossils are transitional or not. If, as many of
them claim, Java Man is an ape, a comparative photo of an
ape, Java Man and a human would be an easy way to demonstrate it. If they are
confident in their interpretation of the data, why do they not show the evidence to
their readers?

Another feature of creationist literature is its approach to scientific authority.
Creationists appear to make no attempt to weigh evidence; they often accept
uncritically any statement made by a scientist which can be used to advantage, while
ignoring any contrary opinions. Scientists used in this way include Oxnard,
Zuckerman, and Ivanhoe. Their results are often treated as if they were
authoritative, when in reality they are very much minority opinions in the
scientific community.

Creationists fail to see evidence of transitional forms not because there is none,
but because they have a infallible method of explaining away any evidence. Starting
with the certainty that transitional fossils do not exist, any fossil that is too
different from H. sapiens to be considered a human is an ape, and all others
are humans. No creationist ever defines what would be acceptable as a valid
transitional fossil, because examples could be found to fit any reasonable
definition. Instead, creationists are forced to take potshots at irrelevant
fossils, misrepresent a few carefully selected examples, and ignore the strongest
evidence for human evolution.